Re: Variant-ID proposal

> One question: how does a cache decide if 300 response with an
> Alternates header can be returned in reply to a subsequent
> request (a more precise way of saying "is cachable")?  Is this
> 
>     1. Always
>     
>     2. Only if the new request looks like [fill in the blank]
> 
>     3. Never

Always, unless otherwise indicated by a Cache-control or Expires
in the 300 response.  This is (was?) in the description of 300.

> I guess I'd be happier if someone could tell me what a Content-Location
> looked like.

Just like Location, except with "Content-" in front.  I edited the
description directly into Jim's copy, since the changes from URI 
covered many different areas.

> It might also be nice if someone could explain how an
> origin server decides whether to use opaque negotiation or transparent
> negotiation.  However, I think from the point of view of caching, I
> don't need to know.

It would normally be done via server configuration (in practice,
on a directory-by-directory basis or using .meta/.multi files).

> ...
> I would rephrase that as: The variant-ID is used as part of the cache
> key only if the Request-URI is not sufficient to determine a specific
> entity.  (And then only for conditional requests and for replacing 
> existing cache entries.)

Yep.

......Roy

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 1996 03:55:34 UTC